poker_updateUnit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a partial update ('部分更新可能') and maintains a 4-key structure ('4つのキーは常に維持'), which helps understand its mutation behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded, stating the core action and key constraint in one sentence. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from behavior).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the update action and structural constraints, but lacks details on error handling, return values, or integration with sibling tools, which would be needed for full context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (angle, density, length, radioactivity) well-documented in the schema, including enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by noting the 4-key structure and partial update capability, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage beyond what's already structured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('既存単位設定' - existing unit settings), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'poker_getUnit' (read) or 'poker_proposeUnit' (create), which would require a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing unit to update), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'poker_proposeUnit' for creation or 'poker_getUnit' for reading.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.